That's not good enough! We needed at least a fifteen minute montage of Superman saving people, weeping, angsting, saving people, angsting, followed by some moping, an identity crisis, and more angsting.

Yeah, that's not what anyone who had problems with the movie wanted. Like, what you described, no one asked for that ever.

That's not good enough! We needed at least a fifteen minute montage of Superman saving people, weeping, angsting, saving people, angsting, followed by some moping, an identity crisis, and more angsting.

Geez. Any person who has ever enjoyed a decent film knows that films should never leave open the door for imagining things, and it has to answer every question at every level, and stuff.

I presume this was aimed at me, a person who according to your critique of my criticism, has never enjoyed a decent film.

The particular criticism isn't asking for Superman to save more lives -- he saved a planet, didn't he? It's asking the movie to kinda say something about, you know, about all that death and destruction that just happened. Have a news montage, show Superman just looking at the smoking ruins, a girl planting a flower, a "city under construction" sign -- something.

Instead, Superman's hot, everything in Metropolis seems hunky-dory and there are courtside seats to the game.

I'm not dismissing the movie here because I know a great many loved it, and it isn't my intention to derail anyone's enjoyment. But this seems like a valid talking point so I raised it.

So... maybe we could discuss this without the need to dismiss my or anyone's opinion as a viewer?

I presume this was aimed at me, a person who according to your critique of my criticism, has never enjoyed a decent film.

The particular criticism isn't asking for Superman to save more lives -- he saved a planet, didn't he? It's asking the movie to kinda say something about, you know, about all that death and destruction that just happened. Have a news montage, show Superman just looking at the smoking ruins, a girl planting a flower, a "city under construction" sign -- something.

Instead, Superman's hot, everything in Metropolis seems hunky-dory and there are courtside seats to the game.

I'm not dismissing the movie here because I know a great many loved it, and it isn't my intention to derail anyone's enjoyment. But this seems like a valid talking point so I raised it.

So... maybe we could discuss this without the need to dismiss my or anyone's opinion as a viewer?

Yeah. The film itself should acknowledge that. I'd love to have seen news footage of people commenting on this situation, but also reporting that "Superman spent 9 hours looking for people trapped under the rubble" or something like that.

Yeah. The film itself should acknowledge that. I'd love to have seen news footage of people commenting on this situation, but also reporting that "Superman spent 9 hours looking for people trapped under the rubble" or something like that.

It doesn't even have to show Superman being humanitarian (though that'll be nice). You could have the city, the people picking themselves up after the disaster.

Actually landis said something along the lines of a levels city has no place in a superman film. But I paraphrase. I also didn't see a leveled city but that's beside the point.

I don't think that all the people that have complained about "insane(and inane) destruction" they saw in mos would suddenly stop complaining if some of it was addressed at the end. Their superman experience was already tainted. The only way to fix it(maybe) would have been if superman caught a few falling people and maybe blew out a fire or two.

My free time is near it's end so I'm not going to watch that hour long landis video. Been hearing good things about it though. Not sure if these people are pranking me or not.

I do think that the MOS producers are going to have so many easy fixes come the next film that it will no doubt lead to vindication for the fans. I'm just curious which side of the films fans will feel more. Looking at the way these cbm films are usually received I'd probably say the side that was supporting the first film.(see BB/ASM/SPM)

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

Actually landis said something along the lines of a levels city has no place in a superman film. But I paraphrase. I also didn't see a leveled city but that's beside the point.

I don't think that all the people that have complained about "insane(and inane) destruction" they saw in mos would suddenly stop complaining if some of it was addressed at the end. Their superman experience was already tainted. The only way to fix it(maybe) would have been if superman caught a few falling people and maybe blew out a fire or two.

I think Landis does exaggerate the extent of the destruction a little (ok, more than a little). For him, it was pretty much a "tainted superman experience", so that affected his comments, big time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

My free time is near it's end so I'm not going to watch that hour long landis video. Been hearing good things about it though. Not sure if these people are pranking me or not.

It's really a comic book pitch, but as far as pitches go, it was really entertaining. Check it out if you have the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin

I do think that the MOS producers are going to have so many easy fixes come the next film that it will no doubt lead to vindication for the fans. I'm just curious which side of the films fans will feel more. Looking at the way these cbm films are usually received I'd probably say the side that was supporting the first film.(see BB/ASM/SPM)

I'm hoping to view MoS as a TDKR when the sequel comes out, where it only makes full sense that you have seen the related movies to derive a greater understanding and enjoyment.

Yeah, that's not what anyone who had problems with the movie wanted. Like, what you described, no one asked for that ever.

Maybe not fifteen minutes, but people have said repeatedly that what MOS needed was for there to be a montage of Superman saving people, and an acknowledgement of the deaths/death toll/destruction.

So yeah, people have totally asked for that.

Since Superman screamed and wept for obviously no apparent reason whatsoever.

If this had been a comic book, a panel with no words where he is kneeling, exhausted amidst the rubble, with Lois Lane holding him while he wept would have been a fitting and beautiful way to acknowledge what happened. Seeing it in live action was so powerful and gorgeously done. I don't understand how that single moment is not enough for some people.

Maybe not fifteen minutes, but people have said repeatedly that what MOS needed was for there to be a montage of Superman saving people, and an acknowledgement of the deaths/death toll/destruction.

So yeah, people have totally asked for that.

Except no, because what you said sounded silly and unreasonable, and what people have actually asked for doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tempest

Since Superman screamed and wept for obviously no apparent reason whatsoever.

If this had been a comic book, a panel with no words where he is kneeling, exhausted amidst the rubble, with Lois Lane holding him while he wept would have been a fitting and beautiful way to acknowledge what happened. Seeing it in live action was so powerful and gorgeously done. I don't understand how that single moment is not enough for some people.

It's that it comes at the end of a long sequence where the emotional reality of what's going on is largely ignored in favor of action and spectacle. It rings false as a result.

No follow-up on the absolute mess Metropolis was left in was most definitely a very poor decision on Snyder/Goyer's part. But they dug their own hole there. They should have had a grief-stricken Superman shown working tirelessly to pull people out of rubble. But that's not something we ever really want to see in a Superman film either, but it is the only option (just like snapping Zod's neck) that was there, and they chose to not do that and just sweep everything under the rug.

It's such a simple piece of writing that could have served to address multiple problems with the film really. Picture this. We have Superman just exhaustingly helping everyone that's trapped and injured as much as he can, and the face's of these people show fear and distrust of him (y'know addressing the whole 'how will the world react' that was a touchstone all throughout the first half of the film) and there's even a silent moment where he offers someone his hand to pull them out and they refuse. Just like in that Max Landis story idea those victims can just be like 'f*** Superman'. Which is a totally naturally way to the story. And then they could even show the army working tirelessly around Superman helping people too, and it's here he can have the exchange about 'I'm just gonna have to trust you General'. I'd do this whole scene in the early morning (thus establishing Superman has been at it for hours) where there's this early Sun rising giving a symbolic feel of dawn. (Similar to the end of Final Crisis where Metropolis is even more torn up but you see the rebuilding happening with the sun just starting to rise and shine through everything). That's exactly what I would do, and it would make MOS 10X better as a whole.

And yeah 'the sequel is going to address this', but that's just not good enough really. It's not a sequels job to acknowledge glaring admissions in the previous film. The first film should work by itself as well.

^You totally hit the nail on the head. That would have been so great to see. But sadly we got nothing. The lack of a follow-up to the destruction caused is such a sore point for me in this movie. I find it inexcusable. And you're right, we shouldn't have to wait until a sequel to see how it is handled. Superman should have been shown immediately helping the victims.

Like everyone else here who follows what's going on, I can look forward to a sequel addressing the aftermath of the invasion, which if done right, will be all kinds of wonderful.

But how about those in the GA who were troubled with the unacknowledged death and destruction? Those who don't know that there's going to be a sequel, let alone know or care who the heck Goyer is.

Tempest, you say people who take issue with this have "delicate sensibilities". But what's so wrong with someone else being sensitive to it? What if someone is bothered by the unaccounted for 9-11 imagery -- do we call the person out to be a big baby?

It's clear you were emotionally invested in and affected by the movie, and you said it beautifully here:

If this had been a comic book, a panel with no words where he is kneeling, exhausted amidst the rubble, with Lois Lane holding him while he wept would have been a fitting and beautiful way to acknowledge what happened. Seeing it in live action was so powerful and gorgeously done. I don't understand how that single moment is not enough for some people.

But doesn't that mean that you too have delicate sensibilities? Just of a different receptivity?

The internets reminds me of my few experiences in bars.
I shouldn't talk though, I've done the same with TDK films and of course blade 3.

I'm glad for all it's chaos, superman ended on a very upbeat note and nothing more. I can only imagine what the purists and Donner fan would have filled these threads with had it been otherwise.

Nothing wrong with the chaos and destruction in my view, it's just the lack of a follow up to it that bothers me. I will be the first to defend Superman not having time to rescue civilians while fighting Zod. But after Zod's death, it would have been a perfect time to see him survey the damage and do some helping out.

The internets reminds me of my few experiences in bars.
I shouldn't talk though, I've done the same with TDK films and of course blade 3.

I'm glad for all it's chaos, superman ended on a very upbeat note and nothing more. I can only imagine what the purists and Donner fan would have filled these threads with had it been otherwise.

The upbeat note felt very undeserved though. It could only naturally end on a note far darker than any of the TDK films with the absolute death and destruction left. Instead they just did a total tonal shift and did not address it at all.

Yeah, we're dissecting the movie to death, but I don't see it as bad thing personally. The discussions and dialogues are done in the right spirit for the most part, no one's bashing the movie (for the most part). It's no IMDB, that's for certain.

The upbeat note felt very undeserved though. It could only naturally end on a note far darker than any of the TDK films with the absolute death and destruction left. Instead they just did a total tonal shift and did not address it at all.

Tell me what's wrong with that scene I posted.

If it's the death and destruction specifically that bothered you then I assume you mean like avengers(which also did a tonal shift at the end), you are in the camp that wanted a from of memorial or someone acknowledging it and that would have been the fix?
no lead in just a question.

__________________
"I care because filmmakers now make films under crippling security because of parasitic gossip. makes movies worse"
-James Mangold.

I don't think the tonal shift in Avengers and the tonal shift in Man of Steel are comparable. That is to say, I don't think they're the same thing. I think they can be compared, but only to point out and analyze the ways in which they contrast, because they're very different from one another. The tonal shift in Avengers, I feel, grows very organically out of the narrative, and offers a very satisfying emotional release for the audience. The tonal shift in Man of Steel, however, is very sudden and does not built off of what came before and as a result feels very out of place to a lot of people.

The Wolverine still has good ratings, but many have accused it of being too psychological and ambitious. From what I've read. :/

I read a review for The Wolverine which offered a similar criticism that was given to MoS: That the movie was a movie of two halves. The first a thoughtful character study, the second a half descending into a mire of mindless and unsatisfying action.

It's interesting to see how critics and audiences take to the coming CBMs which are similarly 'heavy'.

What was tonally off with The Avengers at the end? Honestly curious. I thought it was consistently fun and light throughout -- true to its tone.

MoS abruptly changed gears with the "He's kinda hot" joke, a joke which seemed like it would belong in TA rather than here.

I think The Avengers' tone shifted a lot. I mean, this is a movie that had the Schwarma scene and Agent Coulson's death, it had a a lot of emotional highs and lows. But it worked because every time the shifted into a different tone, it wasn't disregarding the previous one, it built off of it. We're sad when Coulson dies, so we're happy when The Avengers start kicking Loki's ass. We see the damage and the threat to innocent lives that the invasion poses, so we cheer when The Avengers stop it and we get a kind of emotional release from the Schawrma scene, which is funny, but funny in a way that acknowledges (and is really entirely about) how physically and emotionally drained these characters are after the battle.

The tone changes a lot, but I wouldn't call it inconsistent because it's an organic progression that keeps the audience invested.

I think The Avengers' tone shifted a lot. I mean, this is a movie that had the Schwarma scene and Agent Coulson's death, it had a a lot of emotional highs and lows. But it worked because every time the shifted into a different tone, it wasn't disregarding the previous one, it built off of it. We're sad when Coulson dies, so we're happy when The Avengers start kicking Loki's ass. We see the damage and the threat to innocent lives that the invasion poses, so we cheer when The Avengers stop it and we get a kind of emotional release from the Schawrma scene, which is funny, but funny in a way that acknowledges (and is really entirely about) how physically and emotionally drained these characters are after the battle.

The tone changes a lot, but I wouldn't call it inconsistent because it's an organic progression that keeps the audience invested.

Now that you said it, yeah, the movie worked for me precisely the manner you described. The Schwarma scene is amazing because it was brilliantly set up by the movie. Man of Steel had "welcome to the planet" as an amazing line to end the movie on -- but I thought it wasn't an amazing scene because it wasn't brilliantly set up in the movie.

Now that you said it, yeah, the movie worked for me precisely the manner you described. The Schwarma scene is amazing because it was brilliantly set up by the movie. Man of Steel had "welcome to the planet" as an amazing line to end the movie on -- but I thought it wasn't an amazing scene because it wasn't brilliantly set up in the movie.

You see, I didn't even catch that. Now, the question is, is that because I, personally, wasn't paying attention, or is it because the film makers didn't do their job of getting me emotionally hooked so that line would resonate?